Looking at this stadium design, would there be a way it could be used for cricket. The New Zealanders have been developing drop in wickets so they can turn their rugby grounds in to cricket stadiums for bigger matches so the grass technology exists for it to happen.

Lovely. More delays, more dumbing down, more chance of it being a sprint to the finish...

More delays for Olympic stadium
6 July, 2007
By Angela Monaghan
… as external works go three times over budget

The design for the Olympic stadium has been further delayed as it emerged this week that the budget for the project’s external works had tripled.

A source close to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) said: “On some of the external works there is considerable disparity between what the budget is and what it needs to be.”

This disparity means that the finalisation of the stadium design has been held up while the teams reach an agreement on specification and scope.

David Higgins, the ODA’s chief executive, said last November that the design would be completed in January this year.

The external works programme involves all the space outside the seated area, including services, refreshments and utilities. It also includes areas outside the stadium, such as public spaces, landscaping and roads.

This works programme accounts for about 10% of the main stadium project, which is predicted to cost about £600m.

The latest setback casts doubt on the ODA’s claims that it will meet the overall £9.3bn budget for the Olympics, which has a further 20% contingency.

Some of the external works fall within the responsibility of the stadium consortium, led by Sir Robert McAlpine, and some will be undertaken by the EDAW consortium that is masterplanning the Olympic park.

This is not the first budgetary problem to hit the stadium – Building revealed in February that its designs were being scaled back because of fears over cost.

The ODA said: “The stadium is a unique design and engineering challenge. We are on track and will not apologise for taking time to plan this project well.”

Lovely. More delays, more dumbing down, more chance of it being a sprint to the finish...

This is not the first budgetary problem to hit the stadium – Building revealed in February that its designs were being scaled back because of fears over cost.

The ODA said: “The stadium is a unique design and engineering challenge. We are on track and will not apologise for taking time to plan this project well.”

When I read the likes of this, I always wonder what exactly 'scaled back' means, especially as they seem to have been scaling back for sometime now and the costs are still causing concern and are still £600m. How can the stadium be £600m if the design has been scaled back many times (including the decision to have no roof - hopefully we will have a better Summer in 2012 then 2007) and the the bulk of the stadium is going to be temporary, what exactly is £600m paying for? Is it the engineering challenge, to ensure that what is built can be easily dismantled causing the problem, and if so would it not have been better to go for something more permanent? It just seems that an enormous gamble is being taken with the centre piece venue, and we could still end up with something costing a lot of money but which looks temporary and cheap.

Lovely. More delays, more dumbing down, more chance of it being a sprint to the finish...

This is not the first budgetary problem to hit the stadium – Building revealed in February that its designs were being scaled back because of fears over cost.

The ODA said: “The stadium is a unique design and engineering challenge. We are on track and will not apologise for taking time to plan this project well.”

When I read the likes of this, I always wonder what exactly 'scaled back' means, especially as they seem to have been scaling back for sometime now and the costs are still causing concern and are still £600m. How can the stadium be £600m if the design has been scaled back many times (including the decision to have no roof - hopefully we will have a better Summer in 2012 then 2007) and the the bulk of the stadium is going to be temporary, what exactly is £600m paying for? Is it the engineering challenge, to ensure that what is built can be easily dismantled causing the problem, and if so would it not have been better to go for something more permanent? It just seems that an enormous gamble is being taken with the centre piece venue, and we could still end up with something costing a lot of money but which looks temporary and cheap.

Flood damage in Hull has created a skills shortage hampering regeneration efforts, the city's council leader said today.
Carl Minns told Regen.net that major projects like St Stephens in Hull city centre could be slowed by the need to repair 17,000 homes, plus schools and leisure centres.

He said the government had yet to promise Hull any help with capital costs.

"The only aid they promised so far is under [the emergency financial assistance scheme] Bellwin, which helps with revenue cost only," Minns said.

"All I need to know is a very simple statement: we won't forget you, help is on the way."

He said the city would have suffered from a skills shortage even without the floods, but the problem has been made worse, and could lead to wage inflation.

"There will be massive competition for those painting and decorating skills, not to mention London sucking out a lot of trade for the Olympics," Minns said.

But he could not put a figure on the cost of resolving the crisis.

"We're still piecing it all together. We now know the cost to primary schools will be between £60 million and £100 million.

"Our immediate priority is getting humanitarian aid out to people... Until we're over this in two or three weeks, we can only then start quantifying the long-term skills shortage."

Communities minister John Healey, who will co-ordinate the government's response, is due in Hull this afternoon.

They're not building anything at Stratford yet (apart from a big tunnel to divert the electric lines under the site rather than over it) so there's no way that local trades people are being 'sucked' into London for the Olympic project.

And, if you lived in London, you'll know that the majority of workers on all the big projects are actually not from the UK - far cheaper to bring them in from Eastern Europe.

He's talking about painters and decorators needed for fixing up Hull after the recent flood damage - that's means he's talking about now.

The Olympics don't need painters and decorators at the moment. In fact, they wont be needing them till 2010 hopefully, although more realistically 2011/2012.

And do you really think there's such a small pool of eastern europeans that they'll all go to London and wont go elsewhere.

In fact, the Olympics is probably a good thing for getting workers from the rest of Europe. They'll come flooding in - far too many for Stratford and will go elsewhere around the country to find work. Maybe even some of them will find their way to Hull.

This guy is talking absolute rubbish - he's just whinging because he's trying to get the government to provide more flood relief money.